The survey frames the issue before measuring opinion

The introduction says the Township is exploring a referendum and explains that state law allows municipalities to raise property or income taxes for open space. It defines open space broadly as “natural areas, farms, parks, trails, and similar areas.” That framing may lead respondents to think mainly about positive public benefits before they are asked about tax impacts.

A more neutral survey would first ask residents what their priorities are, then explain the possible funding tools, costs, tradeoffs, and ballot timing.

“Open space” is too broad

The survey combines many different things under one term: natural areas, farms, parks, trails, meadows, woodlands, wetlands, waterways, greenways, connectors, and wildlife habitat. Those are not all the same policy choice.

A resident may support preserving farms but oppose buying more parkland. Another resident may support trails but not farmland preservation. Another may support natural areas but not tax-funded acquisition. The survey does not separate those preferences clearly enough.

It does not explain what land is actually eligible or realistic to preserve

The survey asks whether residents support open space preservation, but it does not tell them how much land is realistically available, which parcels may already be developed, which are already institutionally owned, which are floodplain-restricted, which are under HOA control, or which properties are already unlikely to be developed.

That matters because residents may answer based on the idea of preserving “remaining open land,” without knowing whether the Township has identified specific viable targets.

The survey does not provide the actual tax options

Question 15 asks whether a person would be willing to pay a “modest increase in property or income taxes.” That is vague. “Modest” means different things to different households.

The survey should provide specific examples, such as:

A 0.10% Earned Income Tax increase would cost approximately $100 per year for each $100,000 of taxable earned income.

A property tax increase would affect property owners differently depending on assessed value.

A combined 50/50 approach would split the revenue between Earned Income Tax and property tax.

Without those examples, residents are being asked to react emotionally rather than financially.

Question 16 is difficult to interpret

Question 16 asks people who answered “Yes” or “Maybe” to enter the dollar figure they would be willing to pay per year. That sounds simple, but the answer may not translate cleanly into either property tax or EIT.

For example, someone may write “$100,” but that does not say whether they mean per household, per wage earner, per property, per $100,000 of income, or as a general feeling. It also excludes “No” voters from giving a maximum acceptable amount, which could be useful data.

The survey does not ask whether respondents prefer EIT, property tax, or a split

The introduction says state law allows municipalities to ask voters about property or income taxes, and Question 15 refers to “property or income taxes.” But the survey does not directly ask which funding method residents prefer.

That is a major gap because an EIT increase and a property tax increase affect different groups differently. Renters, retirees, wage earners, property owners, commuters, and fixed-income residents may all view the options differently.

It does not test support for a 50/50 tax structure

If the Township is discussing a possible split between Earned Income Tax and property tax, the survey should ask about that specifically. Right now, a resident can support “open space” and “maybe” support taxes, but the survey does not reveal whether they support:

only EIT, only property tax, a 50/50 split, a smaller amount, a sunset provision, or no tax increase at all.

That makes the results less useful for actual policy decisions.

The survey may overstate support by separating values from costs

Questions 8 through 14 ask about growth concerns, open space importance, environmental impacts, and quality of life. Those questions may produce broad agreement because many people like parks, farms, waterways, and natural land.

But support for the concept of open space is not the same as support for a new tax. The survey does not strongly separate “Do you value open space?” from “Are you willing to pay this specific amount through this specific tax?”

The ranking questions are hard to analyze

Questions 10, 11, and 13 ask respondents to rank items by writing numbers next to preferences. Ranking questions are harder for paper respondents, easier to complete incorrectly, and harder to interpret if people skip numbers, repeat numbers, or only rank one or two items.

A clearer format would ask respondents to rate each item separately, for example: Very Important, Somewhat Important, Not Important. That would produce cleaner data.

The growth questions may create a push-pull bias

The survey asks about concerns from growth, including traffic, noise, school pressure, environmental effects, and loss of community character. Then it asks about benefits from growth, including jobs, housing, businesses, transportation, and government services.

That structure is not necessarily wrong, but it may steer the respondent into thinking open space preservation is the solution to growth concerns, even though the survey does not explain whether an open space tax would actually solve traffic, school pressure, infrastructure, zoning, stormwater, or transportation issues.

“Pressure on the school system” is included without context

Question 11 includes “pressure on the school system” as a potential growth impact. That is a significant issue, but the survey does not explain whether the Township has coordinated with the school district or whether open space preservation would materially reduce school impacts.

This could create confusion because school funding and Township open space funding are separate public finance issues.

There is no question about existing Township priorities or alternative uses of tax dollars

The survey does not ask residents whether open space funding should rank above other Township needs, such as roads, stormwater, public safety, sewer/water infrastructure, parks maintenance, debt, emergency services, or tax stability.

A referendum is not just about whether open space is good. It is about whether residents want a dedicated tax increase compared with other public needs.

There is no sunset, cap, or accountability question

The survey does not ask whether residents would support a tax only if there were safeguards, such as:

a sunset date, a maximum annual collection amount, annual public reporting, parcel-by-parcel review,
voter reauthorization, a citizens advisory board, or limits on administrative/consulting costs.

That is a flaw because some residents may support preservation only with accountability controls.

The survey does not ask about land acquisition versus easements

Open space preservation can mean different tools: buying land outright, buying development rights, conservation easements, trail easements, partnerships with nonprofits, grants, or matching funds.

The survey does not ask which tools residents support. That could matter greatly because buying land removes property from private ownership, while easements may preserve land while keeping it privately owned and taxable.

The survey does not ask about maintenance costs

The introduction mentions preserving and managing open space, but the questions focus mostly on preservation. If the Township buys or manages land, there may be long-term costs for mowing, trails, stormwater, parking, security, insurance, invasive species control, signage, staffing, and maintenance.

Residents are not asked whether they support ongoing operating costs, not just acquisition.

The survey audience is broad but the results may be presented as resident opinion

The survey says it gathers input from “residents and stakeholders.” It asks whether the person is a resident and whether they work in the Township. That is useful, but the Township must be very careful when reporting the results.

Responses from residents, nonresident workers, property owners, renters, business owners, and other stakeholders should be separated. Otherwise, the survey could be used to imply “residents support X” when the respondent pool may include nonresidents or duplicates.

Address collection helps reduce duplicate responses, but creates privacy concerns

Question 3 asks for home mailing address to verify residency and monitor repeated survey responses. That has a valid purpose. However, it may also reduce participation from residents who do not want to provide their address, especially on a tax-related issue.

The survey says addresses will remain confidential within Township staff, but it does not explain retention, public records treatment, who has access, or whether responses are anonymous after verification.

Demographic questions may discourage participation

The survey asks for age, household income, children in household, and length of residency. It says those questions are optional, which helps. However, asking for income after already asking for home address may feel intrusive to some respondents.

That could depress participation or skew responses toward people more comfortable sharing personal information.

There is no “I need more information” option on the tax question

Question 15 gives “Yes,” “No,” and “Maybe.” But a better option would be: “I need more information about the amount, tax type, eligible land, and program rules before deciding.”

That is different from “Maybe.” A resident may not be uncertain about open space; they may simply lack enough details to answer responsibly.

Timing question may be premature

Question 17 asks whether the referendum should be attempted in Fall 2026 or a future election. But the survey does not first ask whether residents believe enough public education, financial detail, parcel analysis, and ballot language have been provided.

A more complete question would ask whether residents support moving forward in 2026 only if the Township provides clear cost estimates, eligible land analysis, draft ballot language, and public meetings before the filing deadline.

Simple summary

The biggest flaw is that the survey asks residents whether they like open space before giving them enough detail about the tax amount, tax structure, eligible land, program rules, and long-term costs. It measures general support for a positive idea, but it does not fully measure informed support for a specific referendum.

A fairer survey would separate these questions:

Do residents value open space?
What types of land should be prioritized?
What land is realistically preservable?
Should the Township raise taxes for it?
Which tax should be used?
How much are residents willing to pay?
Should there be a cap, sunset, or accountability rules?
Is Fall 2026 too soon?

That would give the Board much stronger and more defensible public input.